NY Times Poll: Large Majority of DEMOCRATS Oppose Transgenders in Women's Sports

[AmyStrange]

What TRAs in this thread?

Are you calling AmyStrange (who likes everyone's arguments) a TRA?

Thank you.

It's obvious that some "skeptics" in here don't always have the proper reading comprehensions skills, and will sometimes invent stuff just to make themselves look good.

Anyway, thank you once again.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's OK. I'm a fan of chain yanking.

I don't know the term. I find "shaming" anyone for whatever floats their boat more distasteful than activities I would never engage in. And as much as I am not interested in wearing a ball gag and being spanked, I'm even less interested in pretend cannibalism.

I used to share your view, but I've stepped back from it. Mostly because there are some people out there who have taken that whole "let your kink flag fly" sentiment and gone really, really overboard with it. I genuinely don't care what people do in private with other consenting adults... but on the other hand, I really don't think anyone should be flaunting it publicly. Some of it really shouldn't be normalized and accepted, because some of it is dangerous, risky, and just plain gross.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope, because I'm not wrong, but if you want to argue with yourself about it, go for it.

Can we try some specificity here? I have a proposal in terms of position, and I'd like to offer it for consideration.

Resolved:
Due to well-established biological differences between the sexes,
1) Females may participate on any male team or in any male sport, subject to the same qulification standards that are applied to males,
2) Males may not participate on any female team or in any female sport

Thus, Clark is perfectly able to take part in the NBA if they so wish, and try out your hypothesis... but it doesn't go the other way - LeBron James cannot take part in the WNBA.

 

[AmyStrange]

Can we try some specificity here? I have a proposal in terms of position, and I'd like to offer it for consideration.

Resolved:
Due to well-established biological differences between the sexes,
1) Females may participate on any male team or in any male sport, subject to the same qulification standards that are applied to males,
2) Males may not participate on any female team or in any female sport

Thus, Clark is perfectly able to take part in the NBA if they so wish, and try out your hypothesis... but it doesn't go the other way - LeBron James cannot take part in the WNBA.

I have no problem with your compromise, because in reality, it doesn't matter what I think on the subject.

As a matter of fact, I'm not for or against any sex competing against the opposite sex in any sport.

What I don't like is anyone saying or even just hinting at the "speculation" that women will ALWAYS be beat by men.

I'm also against forcing women to compete against trans. It should be up to each sports league or team and not lawmakers.

Things with happen or they won't, and I have no say in any of it.

Anyway, thank you for being one of the reasonable folks in this discussion.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Can we try some specificity here? I have a proposal in terms of position, and I'd like to offer it for consideration.

I use the word "speculation" because in reality, saying something won't happen (regardless of all the data behind it) is not a "FACT" until it actually happens.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's obvious that some "skeptics" in here don't have proper reading comprehensions skills.

It's not really that, though. It's that this is a very highly charged topic that's been going on for several years. Many of us have been subjected to a particular debate tactic that gets very, very irritating after the dozenth time.

The tactic we've dealt with many times involves someone coming in with a position that is not entirely unreasonable on its own, but contains some inherent assumption that isn't accurate. The more we try to address the inaccurate bit, the further and further away from reasonable the other person gets... and by the end of it, they've backed up to just calling us names and being entirely immune to any sort of sense.

When it comes to sports, we've seen a very similar approach to yours used as part of a motte-and-bailey argument. The core of it is that the activist will essentially claim that it's sexist toward females to think that females should have separate sports that exclude males. Many of them use the same language as you, along the lines of "oh so you're saying females can't ever beat any males?" and similar.

At the moment, I don't think that's what you're doing. But your unwillingness to step back to the bigger picture, paired with "liking to watch people squirm" is getting several people's hackles up, because we've seen this go sideways many times.

Consider it a case of several of us being very gunshy at this point.

 

[Ron Obvious]

What I don't like is anyone saying or even just hinting at the "speculation" that women will ALWAYS be beat by men.

Which, again, nobody is saying here at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as though it's a lively, ongoing discussion.

 

[acbytesla]

I used to share your view, but I've stepped back from it. Mostly because there are some people out there who have taken that whole "let your kink flag fly" sentiment and gone really, really overboard with it. I genuinely don't care what people do in private with other consenting adults... but on the other hand, I really don't think anyone should be flaunting it publicly. Some of it really shouldn't be normalized and accepted, because some of it is dangerous, risky, and just plain gross.

Why not? It really doesn't hurt me. I don't think it hurts anyone. But of course it depends on what that is. BDSM isn't my personal cup of tea. But I understand the allure.

What's overboard? Isn't that inevitably subjective? Ever been to Comic Con? Aren't people that engage in cosplay going overboard? Isn't bungee jumping, skydiving, race car driving, or rock climbing dangerous? I use to ski and the more extreme it was the more exciting it was. Ever sail in a gale? Dangerous as hell, but I doubt I have ever felt more alive than heeling over with salt spray in my face.

I imagine that whether it is is hanging on to the side of a cliff or BDSM the danger is part of the allure. Don't you?

As for something being gross, that too is personal. I get the "ick" factor it might be to some people, but they don't have to do it. But what right do they have to restrict someone else from engaging in that activity?

 

[AmyStrange]

It's not really that, though. It's that this is a very highly charged topic that's been going on for several years. Many of us have been subjected to a particular debate tactic that gets very, very irritating after the dozenth time.

The tactic we've dealt with many times involves someone coming in with a position that is not entirely unreasonable on its own, but contains some inherent assumption that isn't accurate. The more we try to address the inaccurate bit, the further and further away from reasonable the other person gets... and by the end of it, they've backed up to just calling us names and being entirely immune to any sort of sense.

When it comes to sports, we've seen a very similar approach to yours used as part of a motte-and-bailey argument. The core of it is that the activist will essentially claim that it's sexist toward females to think that females should have separate sports that exclude males. Many of them use the same language as you, along the lines of "oh so you're saying females can't ever beat any males?" and similar.

At the moment, I don't think that's what you're doing. But your unwillingness to step back to the bigger picture, paired with "liking to watch people squirm" is getting several people's hackles up, because we've seen this go sideways many times.

Consider it a case of several of us being very gunshy at this point.

I understand what you're saying, but I have to admit that I spend so much time in the msn and fox forums fighting maga weirdoes that use the very same insulting attitude as some of the folks in here also gets my hackles up.

Anyway, thank you again.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

I use the word "speculation" because in reality, saying something won't happen (regardless of all the data behind it) is not a "FACT" until it actually happens.


-

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree with your reasoning.

I can say that if I drop a ball, it's not going to fly up into outer space. We've observed gravity working for thousands of years, we have piles and piles of data that all demonstrate that balls fall toward the center of the earth when dropped. I don't think it's reasonable to say that my statement is "speculation".

When it comes to athletics... we similarly have thousands upon thousands of data points over a very long time period that all very strongly support the premise that elite female athletes are not competitive against elite male athletes. It's so well established that having to make an explicit statement that one female might perhaps potentially maybe be able to be competitive has such staggering low probability that it's just not even worth consideration based on what we know thus far. *IF* Clark actually does join the NBA *and* performs competitively, *THEN* we will collectively reconsider our position, and entertain the notion of allowing for outlier conditions.

 

[theprestige]

It's not really that, though. It's that this is a very highly charged topic that's been going on for several years. Many of us have been subjected to a particular debate tactic that gets very, very irritating after the dozenth time.

The tactic we've dealt with many times involves someone coming in with a position that is not entirely unreasonable on its own, but contains some inherent assumption that isn't accurate. The more we try to address the inaccurate bit, the further and further away from reasonable the other person gets... and by the end of it, they've backed up to just calling us names and being entirely immune to any sort of sense.

When it comes to sports, we've seen a very similar approach to yours used as part of a motte-and-bailey argument. The core of it is that the activist will essentially claim that it's sexist toward females to think that females should have separate sports that exclude males. Many of them use the same language as you, along the lines of "oh so you're saying females can't ever beat any males?" and similar.

At the moment, I don't think that's what you're doing. But your unwillingness to step back to the bigger picture, paired with "liking to watch people squirm" is getting several people's hackles up, because we've seen this go sideways many times.

Consider it a case of several of us being very gunshy at this point.

I think EC's criticism is too soft. We're not shying away from what is actually an innocent mistake of tone. AS is being unreasonable and offensive on purpose, and he knows it.

 

[AmyStrange]

Which, again, nobody is saying here at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as though it's a lively, ongoing discussion.

IMO, posting that Clark will be destroyed is the same thing, and I'm not responding to any more Clark comments, and that's all I'm saying about that.

If you want to argue with yourself about that, go for it.

I'm staying away from it from now on.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why not? It really doesn't hurt me. I don't think it hurts anyone. But of course it depends on what that is. BDSM isn't my personal cup of tea. But I understand the allure.

What's overboard? Isn't that inevitably subjective? Ever been to Comic Con? Aren't people that engage in cosplay going overboard? Isn't bungee jumping, skydiving race car driving or rock climbing dangerous? I use to ski and the more extreme it was the more exciting it was. Ever sail in a gale? Dangerous as hell, but I doubt I have ever felt more alive than heeling over with salt spray in my face.

I imagine that whether it is is hanging on to the side of a cliff or BDSM the danger is part of the allure. Don't you?

As for something being gross, that too is personal. I get the "ick" factor it might be to some people, but they don't have to do it. But what right do they have to restrict someone else from engaging in that activity?

Adults parading around in public with their genitals hanging out, dressed like dogs on leashes, with tail-dildos shoved up their asses is inappropriate, it exposes people to things they have NOT consented to take part in and violates their sexual boundaries. It exposes children to aberrant behaviors and gives the false impression that such things are "perfectly normal and just fine".

The public acceptance and normalization of erotic choking has resulted in several deaths that shouldn't have happened, and would never have happened if it weren't for the concerted efforts of kink-enthusiasts to portray it as "health normal sexuality". Same thing with anal sex, which frequently results in damage to the rectum as well as long-term incontinence issue... but because it's been intentionally introduced as "normal healthy common sexuality", it's now become something that is *expected* of teenage females, and if they're not willing to take part in it, they end up with the implied message that there's something wrong with them.

If adults want to engage in risky behavior on their own recognizance, in privacy, with other consenting adults, that's their own business - I have no interest whatsoever in policing what they are allowed to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But I absolutely do NOT think that anyone else should be subjected to watching or hearing about it in public, nor should it be presented to youth as "normal healthy" behavior.

 

[AmyStrange]

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree with your reasoning.

I can say that if I drop a ball, it's not going to fly up into outer space. We've observed gravity working for thousands of years, we have piles and piles of data that all demonstrate that balls fall toward the center of the earth when dropped. I don't think it's reasonable to say that my statement is "speculation".

When it comes to athletics... we similarly have thousands upon thousands of data points over a very long time period that all very strongly support the premise that elite female athletes are not competitive against elite male athletes. It's so well established that having to make an explicit statement that one female might perhaps potentially maybe be able to be competitive has such staggering low probability that it's just not even worth consideration based on what we know thus far. *IF* Clark actually does join the NBA *and* performs competitively, *THEN* we will collectively reconsider our position, and entertain the notion of allowing for outlier conditions.

I do agree with all of that, except for this:

If someone who invest in stocks has tons of data points about a company, and puts their money into it, does that mean the company will automatically do well?

Remember those who play the stock market are actually called speculators.

Plus, IMO (like the stock market speculator), it doesn't matter how many data points you have, until your speculation comes true, it is NOT a fact.

That's all I'm saying.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think EC's criticism is too soft. We're not shying away from what is actually an innocent mistake of tone. AS is being unreasonable and offensive on purpose, and he knows it.

So far as I can tell, Amy's actual policy position is in alignment with ours. They're abrasive... but so is smartcooky pretty frequently. Hell, so am I sometimes.

I'm trying not to alienate allies on the basis of tone. It doesn't make sense to me to push away supporters for important policy positions just because we don't like *how* they say it.

 

[AmyStrange]

I think EC's criticism is too soft. We're not shying away from what is actually an innocent mistake of tone. AS is being unreasonable and offensive on purpose, and he knows it.

I love the smell of squirming in the morning.


-

 

[AmyStrange]

So far as I can tell, Amy's actual policy position is in alignment with ours. They're abrasive... but so is smartcooky pretty frequently. Hell, so am I sometimes.

I'm trying not to alienate allies on the basis of tone. It doesn't make sense to me to push away supporters for important policy positions just because we don't like *how* they say it.

You are actually right.

Theprestige is one of those who reminds me of the maga weirdoes in the msn and fox forums.


-

 

[Emily's Cat]

So if someone who invest in stocks has tons of data points about a company, and puts their money into it, does that mean the company will automatically do well?

Remember those who play the stock market are actually called speculators.

Plus, IMO (like the stock market speculator), it doesn't matter how many data points you have, until your speculation comes true, it is NOT a fact.

That's all I'm saying.


-

Lol, they're called speculators because it's literally a guess. The stock market is inherently not predictable. All of the people claiming "oh, I've got a system" are looking at a short-term string of coincidences and assuming it makes an extrapolative pattern. Their systems are no better and no worse than the systems employed by any other bettor.

This is not the same as a diversified portfolio structure, which is based on the long-term tendency of entire sectors and countries to increase in value. Most portfolio approaches act to hedge against the risk of downturns in specific sectors, industries, or geographies, by spreading investments across several areas that move in opposition. And even then there's no guarantee of a profit... as anyone who suffered through the housing bubble could tell you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are actually right.

Theprestige is one of those who reminds me of the maga weirdoes in the msn and fox forums.


-

Theprestige is not, however, one of those weirdos. And if you were more interested in a genuine discussion and conversation with an open mind than in "making people squirm", you should be able to glean that on your own. As it stands, your general approach in this thread has been half a hair's breadth away from trolling, so I'm not at all surprised that other people who you've repeatedly insulted have gotten fed up with it.

 

[AmyStrange]

Theprestige is not, however, one of those weirdos. And if you were more interested in a genuine discussion and conversation with an open mind than in "making people squirm", you should be able to glean that on your own. As it stands, your general approach in this thread has been half a hair's breadth away from trolling, so I'm not at all surprised that other people who you've repeatedly insulted have gotten fed up with it.

I'm not trolling anything, but go ahead and believe that if you want.

I've actually changed my mind about a couple of things because of my discussions in here, and even admitted it when I was wrong, but it seems like I'm the only one here who has the guts to do that.


-